JFK Conspiracy Theories: It Never Ends

[Robert Prey]

This isn't a court of law.

And listing types of expert doesn't answer my question does it?

"How do YOU think expertise should be validated and compared?"



Yes, we understand how courts work. And we know that is how you think a jury works. But let's ignore the irksome niggle that the majority of lawyers, barristers, and solicitors will actually try to validate the expertise of their "expert" witnesses. Or were you unaware of that?


Hmm. Guess you forgot to actually address that after quoting it, as you never actually explain how we should consider expertise here, in this discussion where we are not in a court of law. Let's see if you can try again. You state that Jack White is an expert. You imply Jay is NOT an expert as he is "Self Appointed". Jay stated his credentials and his track record in the field you are discussing. If consider academic and professional qualifications not to be enough for validating his expertise, how do you suggest we do that?

This common sense you allude to is quite simple:

The guy who can validate his expertise with qualifications, professional literature (in peer reviewed journals) and experience working in the field you are discussing, is in a better place to comment than "Some Guy" who sees chins on a garage door, or the guy who got his day in the spotlight only to admit his "tests" were groundless and ill informed.

Is that not common sense?

Is it not common sense to realise that just ecause you can't see something in shadow, does not mean it has been erased from existance? To understand the limits of definition in photographs? Does common sense not suggest that if an image is a composite of two or more photos there will be physical artefacts in the photo left by the composition?

You talk a lot about common sense. Why not try using it. And why not admit it's limitations.

Any "expert" who claims that he, and only he can perceive the truth, should be discarded as a probable shaman.

 

[Robert Prey]

All you keep proving is common sense is a misnomer, and not so common.

I see you have switched tactics and are now complaining about other 'anomalies' in the backyard photos you THINK you see. I will accept that as your admission that the always-bogus shadow claim has been disproven even to your satisfaction. That's another conpiracy claim flushed away.

You haven't gone with any hard evidence. You've gone with eyewitness testimony, which is the softest of evidence, often taking only the parts you like out of context and ignoring all the rest. You've discarded the hard evidence entirely - like the Zapruder film and the autopsy photos, claiming that it must be altered since it conflicts with the eyewitness testimony you accept. If it the eyewitness testimony you accept conflicts with other eyewitness testimony (like the conflicts between Ed Hoffman and Sam Holland in the state of the parking lot area behind the grassy knoll), you always go with the least likely eyewitness testimony. In that particular case, you believed Hoffman's account although it has changed throughout the years and he didn't come forward until 1967 - and then he mentioned two men behind the Depository. Nothing about a Grassy Knoll shooter until the 1970's. If there is an easy resolution to a conspiratorial question (like Ann Mercer's seeing a stalled truck), you ignore the subsequent resolution through investigation, and simply continue to push the conspiratorial interpretation of an account. If a photo has been questioned in any way in the past, you continue to interpret it that way, even after the multiple experts have answered those questions and even after the same image has been reproduced. Etc., etc., ad infinitum.

And it appears you are saying that all science is junk science, and science cannot solve any problem to your satisfaction with your comments about expert opinion. Please tell me I'm misunderstanding that. Otherwise, of course, you'll have to go with the earth being stationary and the entire universe rotating around us on a daily basis - it certainly looks and feels that way to me. I have no sense of motion and I see the sun rise every day and the stars move across the sky every night. So is that what you think is happening?

One question, Robert: How long will it take before you realize the conspiracy books are lying to you? They are, you know. I was once where you are now. Way back in the 1960's and 1970's, I once believed in a JFK conspiracy (yes, I am that old) . I decided it was solvable, and decided to go directly to the source materials to form my own interpretations, as conspiracy books often conflicted with each other in their interpretations of the evidence. When I did that, the smoke and mirrors vanished, and I realized that the evidence pointed to Oswald. I would recommend this methodology for you too. Stop relying on secondary sources and go directly to the primary sources for your information. You too, when you take this approach, will see the evidence anew, and realize what I realized - that the conspiracy books are lying to you. You have no reason not to do this - the primary source materials - like all the eyewitness testimony from the HSCA and the Warren Commission - are online and free to access nowadays. You won't have to shell out big bucks (over $2000 for a copy of the Warren Commission volumes of evidence to the President's Box Bookshop like I had to to do the research I did).

The truth is out there.
But you will never find it reading conspiracy books.

All the best, Robert.

Hank

If you had any knowledge worth imparting from all those non-conspiracy books you claim to have read, you would have an answer for the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head, but you don't. All you have is your standard, head in the sand mantra -- they are all either lying or mistaken. Some scholarship. Did you really read all of the statements of the Parkland doctors?????

 

[Robert Prey]

What you clearly fail to notice, Robert, is that the position of the photographer is different between the two photos. For 133C the camera position is clearly farther away. Notwithstanding that that will clearly result in LHO looking smaller in 133C by comparison to 133A it means that one cannot simply compare reference points and distances between them and draw any meaningful conclusions regarding fakery without detailed, scientific anaysis; something that you fail to consider because you simply don't understand its importance. Do you not realize, Robert, that as the photographer's position moves closer to LHO the notch on the beam, being beyond LHO's position, will gradually move closer to the top of LHO's head in the field of view, and eventually disappear behind his head as the photographer get really close to LHO? You really[/] don't have a clue, do you, Robert, when it comes to understanding perspective.

Baloney. The relative distances or minor. The guy shrinks in 133C because he is simply pasted in.

 

[Southwind17]

Any "expert" who claims that he, and only he can perceive the truth, should be discarded as a probable shaman.

Are you suggesting that somebody here has claimed otherwise?

If you had any knowledge worth imparting from all those non-conspiracy books you claim to have read, you would have an answer for the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head, but you don't.

You really haven't been paying attention, Robert, have you! Please write out 100 times: "I really must pay attention."

All you have is your standard, head in the sand mantra -- they are all either lying or mistaken. Some scholarship. Did you really read all of the statements of the Parkland doctors?????

Do you really believe everything you read?!

 

[Southwind17]

The relative distances or minor.

So you acknowledge that distance causes the effect described to you. Now we're getting somewhere!

 

[Tomtomkent]

Any "expert" who claims that he, and only he can perceive the truth, should be discarded as a probable shaman.

That is not what has been said.

It has been pointed out there is a proven methodology to photo analysis that you are ignorant of. There is no reason to suspect you could not be educated in this area if you took the time to research the methods professionals in the field use rather than deride them as "self appointed" experts.

There is a difference between recognising you have a different skill set to a specialist who is educated in, and works in, a field, and on the other hand assuming they are the "only" ones capable of understanding it. If you disagree feel free to make your own xbox, attempt brain surgery, or build a sky scraper. After all you clearly believe architecture, neurology, and micro electronics have to be accessible to the leyman to be valid. Or are they shamentoo?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Baloney. The relative distances or minor. The guy shrinks in 133C because he is simply pasted in.

The relative distances only need to be minor.

But feel free to actually support your claim by identifying photographic artefacts in the imageindicative of two images being sliced. You know, mismatches in the grain, indicationsthe negatives were cut, or the emulsion tampered with...

 

[Tomtomkent]

If you had any knowledge worth imparting from all those non-conspiracy books you claim to have read, you would have an answer for the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head, but you don't. All you have is your standard, head in the sand mantra -- they are all either lying or mistaken. Some scholarship. Did you really read all of the statements of the Parkland doctors?????

Did you even read the thread? "Lying or mistaken" is your mantra. You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding "not supported by evidence" and "invalidated by evidence."

If you want us to give a flying **** about your eyewitnesses VALIDATE THEIR CLAIMS WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Otherwise we don't care. Why do you keep repeating the same rubbish over and again when you KNOW there is no point?

If you aren't trying to convince us, why do you keep telling us our heads are in the sand? Do you just like being rude?

If you do want to convince us, then I have patiently explained what will convince us, many times over. So why ignore it and try to insult us time and again, knowing there is a minimum standard of evidence you wont reach?

Why does it even matter to you that we don't beleve the claims you can't validate?

 

[Garrison]

It's a nonsensical argument. How many people have viewed the original B/Y photos? How many have only viewed copies including the Cover of Life Magazine used to convict the Dead Patsy in the court of public opinion? The answer is millions. But there was never an caveat in the publishing of those photos that that might not be real, being only copies. Fact is, sensible conclusions can be drawn from the irrefutable anomalies in these photos, even if they be only copies, they are clear, sharp copies. And when you take into account the circumstances on which these photos were "discovered", including the ghosted photo which the WC never saw, and the background photo minus Oswald which was seen by two photo processors, the night of the assassination, then it is a reasonable to conclude that there is something very fishy about these photos, which only a firmly planted head-in-the sand Lone Nutter would deny.

All you are doing here Robert is revealing why no one takes you seriously. No researcher worth his salt would settle for just checking second or third generation copies of an image to verify whether it had been tampered with. For all you know that clarity and sharpness you place such value might be the product of later processing, you can't know exactly what processing has been done to prepare those photographs for printing, never mind the effects of encoding them for the internet.
Also your claims about the circumstances in which they were found does nothing to alter the physical content or address the question as to whether there is evidence of tampering in the originals. To date your only substantive claim, about the shape of the face in two differently lit photographs, has been refuted. If you want to convince people find someone with the appropriate credentials who has examined the original and found evidence of tampering, failing that you will simply lack credibility, and reiterating the same refuted claims will not enhance it.

 

[Southwind17]

Did you even read the thread? "Lying or mistaken" is your mantra. You are misrepresenting or misunderstanding "not supported by evidence" and "invalidated by evidence."
If you want us to give a flying **** about your eyewitnesses VALIDATE THEIR CLAIMS WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE. Otherwise we don't care. Why do you keep repeating the same rubbish over and again when you KNOW there is no point?
If you aren't trying to convince us, why do you keep telling us our heads are in the sand? Do you just like being rude?
If you do want to convince us, then I have patiently explained what will convince us, many times over. So why ignore it and try to insult us time and again, knowing there is a minimum standard of evidence you wont reach?
Why does it even matter to you that we don't beleve the claims you can't validate?

That's why!

 

[pakeha]

And after all that, you simply concluded that all of the on the scene medical witnesses who saw this, were simply mistaken or lying, eh? some scholarship.



[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]

Some scholarship, indeed.
How can you possbly be so dishonest?
A drawing, that is.
Not a photo.

If you had any knowledge worth imparting from all those non-conspiracy books you claim to have read, you would have an answer for the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head, but you don't. All you have is your standard, head in the sand mantra -- they are all either lying or mistaken. Some scholarship. Did you really read all of the statements of the Parkland doctors?????

Google's your friend, Robert.
Here's the first hit when I googled JFK's head wound:
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/head.htm

The truth's out there, you know!

Another interesting link, disturbing and graphic:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1027256/posts


Now about those perps you were going to link me to?

 

[RoboTimbo]

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/526994ebe72478f327.jpg[/qimg]

Shot yourself in the foot again, eh?

How do you manage to hobble around? LOL.

 

[RoboTimbo]

Fact is, there is very little difference in distances and perspective between the two photos. The distances and angels in your illustration are misleading and contrived. The best reason for the anomalies is that they were the result of a composite forgery.

What times are it?

 

[HSienzant]

Any "expert" who claims that he, and only he can perceive the truth, should be discarded as a probable shaman.

Do you apply that logic to Jack White? You know, they guy who thinks the shadows are all wrong because he never did any vanishing point analysis and thinks the rifle is the wrong size because he didn't take perspective into account?

Or just ALL the photoanalysts on the HSCA photographic panel? You know, the ones who unanimously agreed there's no evidence of forgery and the shadows are in the correct spot and the rifle is the correct size?

If you are applying that rule honestly, you would discard everything Jack White says immediately. But you are not applying that rule honestly, you are applying it only to the true experts, who examined the first-generation materials, not copies, and determined there is no evidence of fakery in the photos. You want to keep Jack White's expert opinion, even though it's been shown he has no expertise, doesn't belong to any photographic societies, and has never published an article in a photography journal, never examined the original materials - and his conclusions are at odds with legitimate experts.

So it sounds like the shaman is the guy you cite - Jack White, not anything I've cited.

You just shot yourself in the leg, Robert. I would say foot, but I'd be surprised if you still had anything left below the ankle at this point.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

If you had any knowledge worth imparting from all those non-conspiracy books you claim to have read, you would have an answer for the 40 plus on the scene medical witnesses who observed a large blow-out in the back of the President's head, but you don't. All you have is your standard, head in the sand mantra -- they are all either lying or mistaken. Some scholarship. Did you really read all of the statements of the Parkland doctors?????

No, Robert. I don't claim they were lying or mistaken. I am claiming the conspiracy books are lying to YOU. Taking stuff out of context; ignoring qualifying remarks; and generally being less than honest about what the doctors said by substituting their inferences for what the doctors actually said.

We've already seen how you and your conspiracy sources falsely cited Malcolm Kilduff and Dr. Jenkins as witnesses at Parkland for a exit wound in the rear of the head.

But Jenkins put the wound IN PLAIN ENGLISH on the right side of the head (and said he saw brain tissue from the back of the head extruding from that wound); which you INFER means an wound in the back of the head - but that inference is yours - Jenkins put the wound on the right side of the head.

Malcolm Kilduff put the wound in the right side of the head. You again INFER Kilduff pointing to the location of the large exit wound means he was claiming that was an entrance wound, not an exit wound - but again, that is simply your INFERENCE only - Kilduff actually said the wound was on the right side of the head.

Dr. Giesecke's description of the head wound damage sounds exactly like the autopy photo I cited, except, as you noted, he said left side of the head instead of the right side of the head. Nonetheless, you cited him as a conspiracy witness, which is nonsense. You never did respond to my post on this subect: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8110502&postcount=4038

You cited the Newmans as witnesses to a shot from the knoll, and falsely claimed Billy Newman couldn't see the back of the head at all. To get to that point, you had to falsely place Newman in the wrong spot on Elm, falsely place the limo at the wrong place on Elm, and falsely place the limo in the wrong lane on Elm. Newman saw the large wound on the right side of the head.

So did Abraham Zapruder, who placed the wound on the right side of the head at the time of his interview on local TV shortly after the assassination. His description jibes entirely with what we see in the Z-film. Zapruder described no damage to the read of the head. You falsely claimed Zapruder could see the rear of the head from his position, but we can see that is false from the film itself, as we can see the rear of the head in the Zapruder film which he took and verified as authentic at the Clay Shaw trial in New Orleans in 1969; as well as verifying it in his Warren Commission testimony in 1964.

And on and on it goes.

In short, your entire case is built on witness statements; but in many cases only on inferences by you (and conspiracy authors) of what the witnesses MEANT, not on what they actually SAID. If you stick to what the witnesses said, and not your inferences of what they meant, you see that many of the witnesses you cite never gave any statements consistent with an exit wound to the rear of the head.

If all you are going to do is repeat your inferences of what the witnesses meant, please don't bother. We've covered this ground and seen your claims are meaningless.

Quote a new witness or two and we'll discuss how you're wrong about those, as well.

Hank

 

[HSienzant]

All you are doing here Robert is revealing why no one takes you seriously. No researcher worth his salt would settle for just checking second or third generation copies of an image to verify whether it had been tampered with. For all you know that clarity and sharpness you place such value might be the product of later processing, you can't know exactly what processing has been done to prepare those photographs for printing, never mind the effects of encoding them for the internet.
Also your claims about the circumstances in which they were found does nothing to alter the physical content or address the question as to whether there is evidence of tampering in the originals. To date your only substantive claim, about the shape of the face in two differently lit photographs, has been refuted. If you want to convince people find someone with the appropriate credentials who has examined the original and found evidence of tampering, failing that you will simply lack credibility, and reiterating the same refuted claims will not enhance it.

He also claimed that a shadow of an object held at 11 o'clock as the rifle is cannot have a horizontal shadow. That has also been shown to be false. He even admitted the angles appear correct. He also argued Oswald's height should not change, but that was refuted as well.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=8137426&postcount=4640

 

[HSienzant]

It's a nonsensical argument. How many people have viewed the original B/Y photos? How many have only viewed copies including the Cover of Life Magazine used to convict the Dead Patsy in the court of public opinion? The answer is millions. But there was never an caveat in the publishing of those photos that that might not be real, being only copies. Fact is, sensible conclusions can be drawn from the irrefutable anomalies in these photos, even if they be only copies, they are clear, sharp copies. And when you take into account the circumstances on which these photos were "discovered", including the ghosted photo which the WC never saw, and the background photo minus Oswald which was seen by two photo processors, the night of the assassination, then it is a reasonable to conclude that there is something very fishy about these photos, which only a firmly planted head-in-the sand Lone Nutter would deny.

Robert, I've asked this before, and you never answered. What's the evidence the Hesters actually saw what they claimed they saw? Is it simply their word, roughly two decades after the fact, with no supporting evidence, that you accept? Or did they actually support their claims with some material evidence?

Hank

PS: Three of those supposedly "irrefutable anomalies" (the horizontal shadow, the chin, and Oswald's apparent height change) have been refuted. What other "irrefutable anomalies" you got that we can refut for you?

 

[Tomtomkent]

Robert, I've asked this before, and you never answered. What's the evidence the Hesters actually saw what they claimed they saw? Is it simply their word, roughly two decades after the fact, with no supporting evidence that you accept? Or did they actually support their claims with some material evidence?

Hank

PS: Three of those "irrefutable" anomalies (the horizontal shadows, the chin, and Oswald's apparent height change) have been refuted. What other irrefutable anomalies you got that we can refut for you?

I wonder if Robert knows what that means. He already admitted that in court experts would disagree, meaning there are at least two interpretations of the data. How can something be irrefutable while there is any ambiguity of determination? Then again his common sense in validating expertise does not extend to considering academic and professional experience and or training in a field. So never mind.

 

[infocusinc]

Fact is, there is very little difference in distances and perspective between the two photos. The distances and angels in your illustration are misleading and contrived. The best reason for the anomalies is that they were the result of a composite forgery.

Wrong, the best reason for the size change is movement of both the camera and the subject. The fact that the distance from subject to camera is small, MAGNIFIES the perspective change. You simply have this backwards. And wrong.

 

[infocusinc]

All you are doing here Robert is revealing why no one takes you seriously. No researcher worth his salt would settle for just checking second or third generation copies of an image to verify whether it had been tampered with. For all you know that clarity and sharpness you place such value might be the product of later processing, you can't know exactly what processing has been done to prepare those photographs for printing, never mind the effects of encoding them for the internet.
Also your claims about the circumstances in which they were found does nothing to alter the physical content or address the question as to whether there is evidence of tampering in the originals. To date your only substantive claim, about the shape of the face in two differently lit photographs, has been refuted. If you want to convince people find someone with the appropriate credentials who has examined the original and found evidence of tampering, failing that you will simply lack credibility, and reiterating the same refuted claims will not enhance it.

Interestingly most of the claims of fakery of the BY photos don't need original materials to check the validity of the claims. Like the false claim of the square chin, pretty much all of the specious claims can be easily checked by just having a decent understanding of basic photographic principle.

Sadly most CT's fail in this regard. Seems those here at JREF share the same fate.